You know I couldn't resist. Thus, I have the dubious honor of posting first on this utterly confusing wiki.
Anyways, today in class we were referring often to Woolfe's style, and then saying what we thought of it. So, I say what I think now: I hate it. Last year, we read A room of one's own. It had to have been the worst piece of literature I have ever read. Woolfe has an irritating tendency to digress completely off topic and then rant on and on. I know that she was attempting to show how female writers of the time wrote and felt, but all she succeeded in doing was making me drowsy and shooting her credibility in the foot. Why? Because it would be most prudent to write a persuasive essay that does not irritate the reader and therefore persuade him or her to agree with what is being written. But she did irritate me, the reader, and therefore I had trouble agreeing with her (which I did, but not because of her work).
Furthermore, Woolfe uses seemingly arbitrary phrases and details. This causes the reader even more distress and even prompts him or her to hate her work (which I do). Therefore, with dread do I anticipate reading Jacob's Room. - JHe-c Jan 7, 2008
A little thing, but REMEMBER: There's no E in Woolf's name.- brtom
When we read A Room of One's Own, I was really fustrated, too. I did not like the rambling and often seemingly disjointed style of writing that Woolf used. Like John mention, I understand why she did that, but it still bothered me. But from what I have read so far, the style seems to fit this particular book. The woman described in the book did not seem to be very concise or organized - in fact, she seemed frustrated and disjointed. Her thoughts were rambling and making little sense, even to herself. She mind was bouncing from the letter she was writting, to her scramble for a stamp, to controlling and finding her children, to remembering that she needed meat. To me it made sense that it was writen in a way that portrayed the emotions we have seen so far in the book. - MBe-c Jan 7, 2008
I, too, understand why the ramblings and digressions are present in this particular book, or at least this chapter. I would love to say that I enjoy reading it. However, I do not. A Room of One's Own was frustrating and I have this weary feeling that Jacob's Room is going to be the same experience. I ramble and I digress, often, in my own conversations and sometimes even in my posting. However, the manner in which Woolf rambles is hard to follow, but her work is published (my postings and conversations are obviously not). I know that she is supposed to be this exceptional writer and I understand why, but that does not mean that I have to like it. I am going to try, for the second year in a row, to put aside my personal frustrations and embrace, what is supposed to be, the amazing style of Virginia Woolf. Maybe my mind, a year older and hopefully wiser, will allow me to appreciate her ramblings and digressions...- MFi-c Jan 7, 2008
Without a doubt, Woolf is difficult for me to read. Last night I read the first chapter and even though it was only seven pages it took me quite a while to read. However, I did enjoy reading it. I will probably not be saying this when it takes hours to read a chapter, but last night's reading was interesting. Here's what I like about her writing, it took thought and imagination. Being descriptive is one thing which she is, however her description took thought. For example, when Jacob was on the beach looking in that rock with the two lovers, it took time for me to imagine. Maybe I just have a bad imagination, but I believe that my imagination is pretty good. Her way of describing takes time for me to understand. And this leads me to question, what is it about her writing that makes it so difficult? Why is it so hard to understand? Yet through all of it, I took thought. Reading that first chapter took thought, and not many books that I can think of take thought to fully understand. - ptr-c Jan 8, 2008
I think I have a different perspective than you three. Because I was not in AP English last year, I didn't read A Room of One's Own. Although maybe it's because I didn't have this experience, I did enjoy reading the first chapter of Jacob's Room. My mind is always going in a million different directions at once. It felt like the first chapter was so real because of the way she wrote it. It wasn't looking back at an event and simply describing the scene. The readers were also able to experience Mrs. Flander's scatterbrained actions. I know that sometimes it can be difficult to understand the plot right away when the author just jumps right into to a story with no background information. But I like that. It's a book that takes a lot of concentration, but I thought it was a creative style of writing. I might not feel the same way towards the end of the book, but as for now I was entertained. - KGa-c Jan 8, 2008
I agree with KGa, in the sense that Woolf's writing style is very real. Maybe it's just me, but in a twisted sense, the style does make sense. Tangents are how I think. Life sometimes often works like this, too; thus, it makes sense to write like this in literature. Not that Woolf didn't edit her work, but I envision her writing as she thought, seeing the story unfold in her mind. I agree with KGa when she says, "It wasn't looking back at an event and simply describing the scene...." Such a style is actually practical and effective especially when the author jumps between scenes or people in the events. Besides, in such a manner, Woolf is unique and profound, and this is what makes her a famous and lasting writer.- sfa-c Jan 8, 2008
Note to Everyone: Let's put a horizontal rule in between all posts. Type four hyphens. Looks kind of nice, doesn't it?- brtom
Some people have mentioned how it's annoying that Woolf writes in a nonlinear fashion, but that's just how her mind works; since I'm a nerd and I read the note before the story began, it said that Jacob's Room was "the first book in which Woolf felt she had, 'found out how to begin to say something in my own voice.'" I'm not saying that I like it, but her stream-of-consciousness just reflects how she herself thinks. Also, I was curious as to what other people thought about how she was constantly switching points of view. What purpose(s) would that serve in the novel? I found it confusing because it made the storyline choppy when it jumped from one character to another. - lma-c Jan 8, 2008
I sometimes enjoy reading the digressions and tangents of Woolf, but just not in great length. I can appreciate her writing abilites, but I like to be entertained as well. To me, entertainment requires some sort of plot--a story to unfold within the pages. A Room of One's Own did not do this for me, but I am excited to see whether or not Jacob's Room will have a plot. Yes, some may argue that there was a story in A Room of One's Own, but with all of the tangents she went on I found it extremely difficult to follow. Will Jacob's Room have a clear plot? Any thoughts? - cdu-c Jan 8, 2008
I have to agree with lma; Woolf's writing style is kind of rambling but it seems realistic. Her writing seems to follow her train of thought; it isn't concise and perfect but the book has a character that is unique to Woolf. When Mrs. Flanders' is talking in Chapter 1 of Jacob's Room, she is flustered and out of sorts, and Woolf's writing is a reflection of Flanders' feelings. It may be more confusing and less sensible to the reader, but it is more like real life; people get distracted and trail off, or leave out details in conversation because they feel they are implied. People go off on tangents and then return to their original thought... while this makes sense in every day speech it is difficult to follow in writing, especially since it's out of the ordinary. Most writers choose a more formal, conventional way of writing, but I feel like Woolf was speaking directly through the words of her book, and I think her life-like interpretations add to the effect of Jacob's Room [as I've seen so far]. It may not be easy to read, or especially entertaining, but if it were, we likely wouldn't be reading it in this class (although some of the books we've read have been enjoyable). - dru-c Jan 8, 2008
Personally I think that the changing perspectives that you get with little or no warning are the most confusing. For example usually in books when there is a change of perspective it is usually done at the point where one chapture ends and another begins to make sure that the readers know that there has been a significant change in perspective and if that dosnt happen usually there is a little more of a transitional period where the reader knows that there is a change in perspective or a change in the focus of the writing. Woolf however, seems to just change her perspective on a limb forcing the reader to think for a minute before he or she can reorient before they can continue to read. This lends the book a nonlinear quality (although from what I have read so far the book is linear its just all the jumping around that lends it a disjointed quality) and in my opinion makes it more confusing than it actually needs to be. - DGr-c Jan 8, 2008
If my memory serves me correctly, A Room of One's Own explained Virginia's philosophy on female writing. She said that women have difficulty gaining recognition because they write differently. Since the majority of the erudite population at the time was male, she claimed that women faced two options: they could either write like a man and sound fake (since they weren't writing as themselves) or they could write in this non-linear, typically female style and live in obscurity. She urged women to be intelligent so that they could understand their own work. Maybe that's why we guys have such a terrible time with her writing. My thinking is very straight-forward; I don't think all over the place. Her style reminds me of listening to someone speaking only half of her thoughts. While the train of thought might be perfectly straight, the listener cannot follow her because he misses the in-between that is crucial for coherence. I realize that this is a deliberate style, but for my mind, it is not an effective style. I only hope that I will be able to adjust. - TRu-c Jan 8, 2008
When I began reading Jacob's Room, I was really quite surprised. I wasn't expecting a story/plot-line, but rather a collection of thoughts, organized in a personal fashion that was difficult to interpret. That's what I got out of A Room of One's Own, at least. I was somewhat excited that the way Woolf began this story was much more story-like than essay-like. I was confused in several places because of the paragraph breaks and the jumps from one part of the scene to another or from one point of view to another. Several times I had to go back and reread the paragraph just to make sure that I wasn't getting my characters crossed. Although it is still slightly puzzling, I enjoy Jacob's Room much more than I did A Room of One's Own. Personally, A Room of One's Own was strictly Virginia Woolf's mind in print. This appears to be made more for a normal fictional story shelf at the bookstore. - bzw-c Jan 8, 2008
Well, today I read the first chapter of Jacob's Room. And, quite honestly, I was surprised. This work is nowhere near as hard to read as A Room of One's Own was. There have been a lot less lengthy and tedious digressions, which helps me immensely. This books is far more fluid, most likely because it has a plot, unlike AROOO, which was an essay. However, I am still not happy with the way that Woolf writes. She still injects passages and phrases into the storyline that seem random. So you have to stop and think for half a minute what she's trying to say. Then Eureka, you find the meaning, move on, and as if on cue, you run into another such statement. This makes the novel choppy. So, I guess what I'm saying is that Jacob's Room is less choppy than AROOO, but it is still choppy (i.e. bad writing. There's bad writing and then there's worse. This is just bad).- JHe-c Jan 8, 2008
John, I also dislike Woolf's writing style but I understand that it is not bad, it is just something that I do not write. I think that it takes an incredible amount of talent to write the way she does because there is so much that she leaves for the reader to interpret. Everything seems to be a jumble of words at the beginning and then later in her work things start to make sense. I think that she wants us to be confused because she thinks that will make us more active in imagining what she is writing about. Although I think most of the time she does not make any sense at all, she must be good for something because look how popular she is, we will have read two books by her--something we rarely do by any author. Therefore, John, I do not think that you can say her writing is bad, I think you can only say that you do not like it.- mha-c Jan 9, 2008
I would have to agree with MHa... I'm not the biggest fan of Woolf's writing, but I can appreciate it for what it is. I do not think that it is poor writing in the least. In fact, I'll be reading and often I'll come across a sentence that is absolutely beautifully crafted. For example, we discussed this sentence in class today: "Slowly welling from the point of her gold nib, pale blue ink dissolved the full stop; for there her pen stuck; her eyes fixed, and tears slowly filled them." As much as I dislike reading Woolf's work, I have to admit that she does have style. I dislike reading it because of the random details that Woolf includes. I tend to read quickly, but I often miss details. Because of this, I get most of the big picture of the reading, but I miss the small things. In some books, I can go on with no problem, but with Woolf, I often get lost because I miss things. - Kho-c Jan 9, 2008
While I too experienced the loss that KHo had with the details, they actually aren't arbitrary details, but part of that "flower unfolding" style that Woolf is attempting (and succeeding at so far). On the very first page, Woolf writes in Mrs. Flander's thoughts that "Seabrook is dead." This seemingly unconnected thought, very confusing to me since I had no idea who or what Seabrook might me, connects later on when we find out in Chapter 2 that Seabrook is her deceased husband. This is definitely one of those books that reading two or three times is necessary. It would help clarify these sort of issues and help you enjoy her prose, more than just trying to figure out what is occurring. On that note, I agree with the others that I often am struck by the beauty and imagination behind many of her sentences. Even without trying this new form of novel, Woolf's style in writing alone would make her one of the top writers of her era. - AHa-c Jan 10, 2008
I came across something Woolf seems to do as part of her style that I hadn’t noticed before. Often, when dialogue is involved, it seems as if they don’t finish their sentences, or they speak in short and choppy dialogue. On page 36, Jacob and Timmy are talking about Timmy’s notebook of scientific observations. “Now…” said Jacob. That is all readers are presented with regarding what they are talking about. The writing around it may give us some clue, but why does she stop with only short quotes. A few sentences later, “It follows…” said Jacob. Once again, this doesn’t provide us with much detail. Woolf doesn’t always leave out things in quotes, but it seems to be a part of her style that is worth noting. Someone mentioned she doesn’t waste her space. I agree with this statement. Things we don’t need to know about, she doesn’t bother explaining. Any other thoughts? - kec-c Jan 15, 2008
I think part of the trouble with reading Woolf is that she often does not finish sentences. However, I think she does this because she is trying to capture a wide spectrum in a short novel. Whereas most authors choose to portray the life of one or two characters, she is portraying the lives of many. What I do not understand is why she has chosen to accomplish this great feat in such a short novel. We know she is worried about failing at one thing so she can do another so why does she choose to make the novel as short as it is? Couldn't she come closer to success in her goal if she had given a little more time for characterization? But perhaps part of sher goal was to make the novel a little confusing for the reader so that he has to work through it and find the plot on his own.- mha-c Jan 21, 2008
Anyways, today in class we were referring often to Woolfe's style, and then saying what we thought of it. So, I say what I think now: I hate it. Last year, we read A room of one's own. It had to have been the worst piece of literature I have ever read. Woolfe has an irritating tendency to digress completely off topic and then rant on and on. I know that she was attempting to show how female writers of the time wrote and felt, but all she succeeded in doing was making me drowsy and shooting her credibility in the foot. Why? Because it would be most prudent to write a persuasive essay that does not irritate the reader and therefore persuade him or her to agree with what is being written. But she did irritate me, the reader, and therefore I had trouble agreeing with her (which I did, but not because of her work).
Furthermore, Woolfe uses seemingly arbitrary phrases and details. This causes the reader even more distress and even prompts him or her to hate her work (which I do). Therefore, with dread do I anticipate reading Jacob's Room. -
A little thing, but REMEMBER: There's no E in Woolf's name.-
When we read A Room of One's Own, I was really fustrated, too. I did not like the rambling and often seemingly disjointed style of writing that Woolf used. Like John mention, I understand why she did that, but it still bothered me. But from what I have read so far, the style seems to fit this particular book. The woman described in the book did not seem to be very concise or organized - in fact, she seemed frustrated and disjointed. Her thoughts were rambling and making little sense, even to herself. She mind was bouncing from the letter she was writting, to her scramble for a stamp, to controlling and finding her children, to remembering that she needed meat. To me it made sense that it was writen in a way that portrayed the emotions we have seen so far in the book. -
I, too, understand why the ramblings and digressions are present in this particular book, or at least this chapter. I would love to say that I enjoy reading it. However, I do not. A Room of One's Own was frustrating and I have this weary feeling that Jacob's Room is going to be the same experience. I ramble and I digress, often, in my own conversations and sometimes even in my posting. However, the manner in which Woolf rambles is hard to follow, but her work is published (my postings and conversations are obviously not). I know that she is supposed to be this exceptional writer and I understand why, but that does not mean that I have to like it. I am going to try, for the second year in a row, to put aside my personal frustrations and embrace, what is supposed to be, the amazing style of Virginia Woolf. Maybe my mind, a year older and hopefully wiser, will allow me to appreciate her ramblings and digressions...-
Without a doubt, Woolf is difficult for me to read. Last night I read the first chapter and even though it was only seven pages it took me quite a while to read. However, I did enjoy reading it. I will probably not be saying this when it takes hours to read a chapter, but last night's reading was interesting. Here's what I like about her writing, it took thought and imagination. Being descriptive is one thing which she is, however her description took thought. For example, when Jacob was on the beach looking in that rock with the two lovers, it took time for me to imagine. Maybe I just have a bad imagination, but I believe that my imagination is pretty good. Her way of describing takes time for me to understand. And this leads me to question, what is it about her writing that makes it so difficult? Why is it so hard to understand? Yet through all of it, I took thought. Reading that first chapter took thought, and not many books that I can think of take thought to fully understand. -
I think I have a different perspective than you three. Because I was not in AP English last year, I didn't read A Room of One's Own. Although maybe it's because I didn't have this experience, I did enjoy reading the first chapter of Jacob's Room. My mind is always going in a million different directions at once. It felt like the first chapter was so real because of the way she wrote it. It wasn't looking back at an event and simply describing the scene. The readers were also able to experience Mrs. Flander's scatterbrained actions. I know that sometimes it can be difficult to understand the plot right away when the author just jumps right into to a story with no background information. But I like that. It's a book that takes a lot of concentration, but I thought it was a creative style of writing. I might not feel the same way towards the end of the book, but as for now I was entertained. -
I agree with KGa, in the sense that Woolf's writing style is very real. Maybe it's just me, but in a twisted sense, the style does make sense. Tangents are how I think. Life sometimes often works like this, too; thus, it makes sense to write like this in literature. Not that Woolf didn't edit her work, but I envision her writing as she thought, seeing the story unfold in her mind. I agree with KGa when she says, "It wasn't looking back at an event and simply describing the scene...." Such a style is actually practical and effective especially when the author jumps between scenes or people in the events. Besides, in such a manner, Woolf is unique and profound, and this is what makes her a famous and lasting writer.-
Note to Everyone: Let's put a horizontal rule in between all posts. Type four hyphens. Looks kind of nice, doesn't it? -
Some people have mentioned how it's annoying that Woolf writes in a nonlinear fashion, but that's just how her mind works; since I'm a nerd and I read the note before the story began, it said that Jacob's Room was "the first book in which Woolf felt she had, 'found out how to begin to say something in my own voice.'" I'm not saying that I like it, but her stream-of-consciousness just reflects how she herself thinks. Also, I was curious as to what other people thought about how she was constantly switching points of view. What purpose(s) would that serve in the novel? I found it confusing because it made the storyline choppy when it jumped from one character to another. -
I sometimes enjoy reading the digressions and tangents of Woolf, but just not in great length. I can appreciate her writing abilites, but I like to be entertained as well. To me, entertainment requires some sort of plot--a story to unfold within the pages. A Room of One's Own did not do this for me, but I am excited to see whether or not Jacob's Room will have a plot. Yes, some may argue that there was a story in A Room of One's Own, but with all of the tangents she went on I found it extremely difficult to follow. Will Jacob's Room have a clear plot? Any thoughts? -
I have to agree with lma; Woolf's writing style is kind of rambling but it seems realistic. Her writing seems to follow her train of thought; it isn't concise and perfect but the book has a character that is unique to Woolf. When Mrs. Flanders' is talking in Chapter 1 of Jacob's Room, she is flustered and out of sorts, and Woolf's writing is a reflection of Flanders' feelings. It may be more confusing and less sensible to the reader, but it is more like real life; people get distracted and trail off, or leave out details in conversation because they feel they are implied. People go off on tangents and then return to their original thought... while this makes sense in every day speech it is difficult to follow in writing, especially since it's out of the ordinary. Most writers choose a more formal, conventional way of writing, but I feel like Woolf was speaking directly through the words of her book, and I think her life-like interpretations add to the effect of Jacob's Room [as I've seen so far]. It may not be easy to read, or especially entertaining, but if it were, we likely wouldn't be reading it in this class (although some of the books we've read have been enjoyable).
-
Personally I think that the changing perspectives that you get with little or no warning are the most confusing. For example usually in books when there is a change of perspective it is usually done at the point where one chapture ends and another begins to make sure that the readers know that there has been a significant change in perspective and if that dosnt happen usually there is a little more of a transitional period where the reader knows that there is a change in perspective or a change in the focus of the writing. Woolf however, seems to just change her perspective on a limb forcing the reader to think for a minute before he or she can reorient before they can continue to read. This lends the book a nonlinear quality (although from what I have read so far the book is linear its just all the jumping around that lends it a disjointed quality) and in my opinion makes it more confusing than it actually needs to be. -
If my memory serves me correctly, A Room of One's Own explained Virginia's philosophy on female writing. She said that women have difficulty gaining recognition because they write differently. Since the majority of the erudite population at the time was male, she claimed that women faced two options: they could either write like a man and sound fake (since they weren't writing as themselves) or they could write in this non-linear, typically female style and live in obscurity. She urged women to be intelligent so that they could understand their own work. Maybe that's why we guys have such a terrible time with her writing. My thinking is very straight-forward; I don't think all over the place. Her style reminds me of listening to someone speaking only half of her thoughts. While the train of thought might be perfectly straight, the listener cannot follow her because he misses the in-between that is crucial for coherence. I realize that this is a deliberate style, but for my mind, it is not an effective style. I only hope that I will be able to adjust. -
When I began reading Jacob's Room, I was really quite surprised. I wasn't expecting a story/plot-line, but rather a collection of thoughts, organized in a personal fashion that was difficult to interpret. That's what I got out of A Room of One's Own, at least. I was somewhat excited that the way Woolf began this story was much more story-like than essay-like. I was confused in several places because of the paragraph breaks and the jumps from one part of the scene to another or from one point of view to another. Several times I had to go back and reread the paragraph just to make sure that I wasn't getting my characters crossed. Although it is still slightly puzzling, I enjoy Jacob's Room much more than I did A Room of One's Own. Personally, A Room of One's Own was strictly Virginia Woolf's mind in print. This appears to be made more for a normal fictional story shelf at the bookstore. -
Well, today I read the first chapter of Jacob's Room. And, quite honestly, I was surprised. This work is nowhere near as hard to read as A Room of One's Own was. There have been a lot less lengthy and tedious digressions, which helps me immensely. This books is far more fluid, most likely because it has a plot, unlike AROOO, which was an essay. However, I am still not happy with the way that Woolf writes. She still injects passages and phrases into the storyline that seem random. So you have to stop and think for half a minute what she's trying to say. Then Eureka, you find the meaning, move on, and as if on cue, you run into another such statement. This makes the novel choppy. So, I guess what I'm saying is that Jacob's Room is less choppy than AROOO, but it is still choppy (i.e. bad writing. There's bad writing and then there's worse. This is just bad).-
John, I also dislike Woolf's writing style but I understand that it is not bad, it is just something that I do not write. I think that it takes an incredible amount of talent to write the way she does because there is so much that she leaves for the reader to interpret. Everything seems to be a jumble of words at the beginning and then later in her work things start to make sense. I think that she wants us to be confused because she thinks that will make us more active in imagining what she is writing about. Although I think most of the time she does not make any sense at all, she must be good for something because look how popular she is, we will have read two books by her--something we rarely do by any author. Therefore, John, I do not think that you can say her writing is bad, I think you can only say that you do not like it.-
I would have to agree with MHa... I'm not the biggest fan of Woolf's writing, but I can appreciate it for what it is. I do not think that it is poor writing in the least. In fact, I'll be reading and often I'll come across a sentence that is absolutely beautifully crafted. For example, we discussed this sentence in class today: "Slowly welling from the point of her gold nib, pale blue ink dissolved the full stop; for there her pen stuck; her eyes fixed, and tears slowly filled them." As much as I dislike reading Woolf's work, I have to admit that she does have style. I dislike reading it because of the random details that Woolf includes. I tend to read quickly, but I often miss details. Because of this, I get most of the big picture of the reading, but I miss the small things. In some books, I can go on with no problem, but with Woolf, I often get lost because I miss things. -
While I too experienced the loss that KHo had with the details, they actually aren't arbitrary details, but part of that "flower unfolding" style that Woolf is attempting (and succeeding at so far). On the very first page, Woolf writes in Mrs. Flander's thoughts that "Seabrook is dead." This seemingly unconnected thought, very confusing to me since I had no idea who or what Seabrook might me, connects later on when we find out in Chapter 2 that Seabrook is her deceased husband. This is definitely one of those books that reading two or three times is necessary. It would help clarify these sort of issues and help you enjoy her prose, more than just trying to figure out what is occurring. On that note, I agree with the others that I often am struck by the beauty and imagination behind many of her sentences. Even without trying this new form of novel, Woolf's style in writing alone would make her one of the top writers of her era. -
I came across something Woolf seems to do as part of her style that I hadn’t noticed before. Often, when dialogue is involved, it seems as if they don’t finish their sentences, or they speak in short and choppy dialogue. On page 36, Jacob and Timmy are talking about Timmy’s notebook of scientific observations. “Now…” said Jacob. That is all readers are presented with regarding what they are talking about. The writing around it may give us some clue, but why does she stop with only short quotes. A few sentences later, “It follows…” said Jacob. Once again, this doesn’t provide us with much detail. Woolf doesn’t always leave out things in quotes, but it seems to be a part of her style that is worth noting. Someone mentioned she doesn’t waste her space. I agree with this statement. Things we don’t need to know about, she doesn’t bother explaining. Any other thoughts? -
I think part of the trouble with reading Woolf is that she often does not finish sentences. However, I think she does this because she is trying to capture a wide spectrum in a short novel. Whereas most authors choose to portray the life of one or two characters, she is portraying the lives of many. What I do not understand is why she has chosen to accomplish this great feat in such a short novel. We know she is worried about failing at one thing so she can do another so why does she choose to make the novel as short as it is? Couldn't she come closer to success in her goal if she had given a little more time for characterization? But perhaps part of sher goal was to make the novel a little confusing for the reader so that he has to work through it and find the plot on his own.-